ILNews

7th Circuit rules in favor of attorneys in failed business investment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A group of investors suing attorneys who worked on the establishment of two business entities – which later failed – were unable to show the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that the attorneys owed the investors any legal duty.

The federal appellate court upheld summary judgment in favor of Beau Jack White and James Beaman and their firm Johnson Beaman Bratch Beal and White LLP on the investors’ claims of RICO violations, conversion, securities fraud, civil conspiracy and legal malpractice.

Real estate investor Chad Seybold hired White and Beaman to help him create two business entities, one of which would be partially owned by a group of investors. At a seminar with potential investors, White explained the concept of limited individual liability afforded by an LLC structure. Seybold told the potential investors that White represented one of the new companies being formed, he’s looking out for the investors’ best interests, and White is working for Seybold and the investors. White never clarified or corrected Seybold’s statements that he was not the attorney for the investors.

Investors sank more than $1 million in Seybold’s plan; about a year later he informed investors he was filing for bankruptcy and that their investments were gone.

The plaintiffs alleged that they each established an attorney-client relationship with the defendants, and even if they didn’t, the defendants still owed them a duty under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, most especially Rule 4.3 laying out a lawyer’s responsibility when dealing with unrepresented persons.

The only attorney-client relationship formed was with the two businesses, the 7th Circuit ruled, rejecting the investors’ claim that White’s presentation at the seminar implied existence of the attorney-client relationship with each investor. The judges also didn’t think Seybold’s comments during White’s presentation implied an attorney-client relationship with investors. They also rejected the claims that a duty was implied under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

“Further, several plaintiffs’ subjective beliefs demonstrate that they understood that the defendants were acting on behalf of the investors as a group, not individually, and that the defendants’ involvement in the investment plan did not last beyond the companies’ formation. And the disclaimer included in the operating agreement that each investor signed should have alerted a reasonable investor that the defendants were not representing them in their personal capacities,” Judge Daniel Manion wrote.

The 7th Circuit also found the investors couldn’t rely on the statements made at the seminar to support their securities fraud or actual fraud claims.

“We need not address the merits of each independent tort … because the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the defendants acted in concert with Seybold to commit any unlawful act, or that they accomplished a lawful purpose through unlawful means,” Manion wrote.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT